most people estimate 50% of priests are gay and most of the vatican gay. Many are sexually active. They aren't denying them communion.

I mean did McCarrick not allow the priests who abused children to take communion ever again? How about himself? No?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a parish that was recently in the news for the priest having denied a parishioner communion for being in homosexual relationship (civilly married in fact). She flaunted this and after numerous attempts to correct her, the priest was left with no alternative to deny her Communion as her actions and continued apostasy were not in accord with the faith. The local Bishop very publicly supported the priest. She and her partner left the Church for a denomination that fit with her lifestyle. The vast majority of parishioners supported the Church is denying her Communion.

did this priest also deny communion to all the divorced, cohabitating, remarried people? did he quiz everyone on their masturbation habits? focusing only on the gay couple demonstrates bigotry, nothing less.

Well she left the Church so the point is moot.

maybe to you. I'm sure she and others still feel it's going on and certainly this isn't the last homosexual person the priest will have to deal with. The problem the catholic church has is that the majority of their priests are homosexual and engage in relations.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

We are not their judges and not intended to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll go ahead and get flamed and say yes it bothers me although judge is a strong word. It's between them and God, but it feels disrespectful to me and my faith. When the priest or EMHC holds up the Host and says "The Body of Christ", the response of "Amen" is saying "yes, so be it", meaning you agree and acknowledge that statement.

But there is no basis for this rule. I mean I know it is church doctrine. But there is no historical basis for it. Not from Jesus and not from the early church. I ignore.

What rule do you ignore? The Catholic belief in the real presence? The significance of “amen” as meaning “so be it” and acknowledging that presence? That Catholics have “closed communion?” Or something else? It’s not clear what you’re saying.

The idea that anything can come between you and the Eucharist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll go ahead and get flamed and say yes it bothers me although judge is a strong word. It's between them and God, but it feels disrespectful to me and my faith. When the priest or EMHC holds up the Host and says "The Body of Christ", the response of "Amen" is saying "yes, so be it", meaning you agree and acknowledge that statement.

But there is no basis for this rule. I mean I know it is church doctrine. But there is no historical basis for it. Not from Jesus and not from the early church. I ignore.

Maybe you’d be better off going to a denomination with different beliefs about the Eucharist? It’s weird to want to go to a religious service and demand to break one of the main rules there.

Why? I am Catholic. But I do get to decide what rules are valid and which ones have no basis and are just silly. Just like an army officer has no obligation to follow an illegal order there is no basis to follow nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a parish that was recently in the news for the priest having denied a parishioner communion for being in homosexual relationship (civilly married in fact). She flaunted this and after numerous attempts to correct her, the priest was left with no alternative to deny her Communion as her actions and continued apostasy were not in accord with the faith. The local Bishop very publicly supported the priest. She and her partner left the Church for a denomination that fit with her lifestyle. The vast majority of parishioners supported the Church is denying her Communion.

did this priest also deny communion to all the divorced, cohabitating, remarried people? did he quiz everyone on their masturbation habits? focusing only on the gay couple demonstrates bigotry, nothing less.

Well she left the Church so the point is moot.

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a parish that was recently in the news for the priest having denied a parishioner communion for being in homosexual relationship (civilly married in fact). She flaunted this and after numerous attempts to correct her, the priest was left with no alternative to deny her Communion as her actions and continued apostasy were not in accord with the faith. The local Bishop very publicly supported the priest. She and her partner left the Church for a denomination that fit with her lifestyle. The vast majority of parishioners supported the Church is denying her Communion.

did this priest also deny communion to all the divorced, cohabitating, remarried people? did he quiz everyone on their masturbation habits? focusing only on the gay couple demonstrates bigotry, nothing less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll go ahead and get flamed and say yes it bothers me although judge is a strong word. It's between them and God, but it feels disrespectful to me and my faith. When the priest or EMHC holds up the Host and says "The Body of Christ", the response of "Amen" is saying "yes, so be it", meaning you agree and acknowledge that statement.

But there is no basis for this rule. I mean I know it is church doctrine. But there is no historical basis for it. Not from Jesus and not from the early church. I ignore.

Maybe you’d be better off going to a denomination with different beliefs about the Eucharist? It’s weird to want to go to a religious service and demand to break one of the main rules there.

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a parish that was recently in the news for the priest having denied a parishioner communion for being in homosexual relationship (civilly married in fact). She flaunted this and after numerous attempts to correct her, the priest was left with no alternative to deny her Communion as her actions and continued apostasy were not in accord with the faith. The local Bishop very publicly supported the priest. She and her partner left the Church for a denomination that fit with her lifestyle. The vast majority of parishioners supported the Church is denying her Communion.

And when do priests deny communion to those who support capital punishment, who put up barriers in TX that have the effect of killing the poor, or who refuse to support common sense gun control?? Please advise.

Some of the best advice I received from my very religious (Catholic) mother regarding the religious beliefs of others - specifically to my question of why my uncle did not go to church - was that that was between him and god.

Every thinking Catholics relationship with the Church is complicated and usually not static.

I grew up in a parish that was recently in the news for the priest having denied a parishioner communion for being in homosexual relationship (civilly married in fact). She flaunted this and after numerous attempts to correct her, the priest was left with no alternative to deny her Communion as her actions and continued apostasy were not in accord with the faith. The local Bishop very publicly supported the priest. She and her partner left the Church for a denomination that fit with her lifestyle. The vast majority of parishioners supported the Church is denying her Communion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll go ahead and get flamed and say yes it bothers me although judge is a strong word. It's between them and God, but it feels disrespectful to me and my faith. When the priest or EMHC holds up the Host and says "The Body of Christ", the response of "Amen" is saying "yes, so be it", meaning you agree and acknowledge that statement.

But there is no basis for this rule. I mean I know it is church doctrine. But there is no historical basis for it. Not from Jesus and not from the early church. I ignore.

What rule do you ignore? The Catholic belief in the real presence? The significance of “amen” as meaning “so be it” and acknowledging that presence? That Catholics have “closed communion?” Or something else? It’s not clear what you’re saying.

Anonymous wrote:I'll go ahead and get flamed and say yes it bothers me although judge is a strong word. It's between them and God, but it feels disrespectful to me and my faith. When the priest or EMHC holds up the Host and says "The Body of Christ", the response of "Amen" is saying "yes, so be it", meaning you agree and acknowledge that statement.

But there is no basis for this rule. I mean I know it is church doctrine. But there is no historical basis for it. Not from Jesus and not from the early church. I ignore.

There are expectations of communion and some people break them - some knowingly and some not. I don’t judge, because I figure that’s on God. If someone truly doesn’t know and receives communion inadvertently, it’s not their fault and I don’t think that’s negative. If someone’s not properly disposed to receive, and does it to cover or not draw attention to themselves or whatever, that’s between them and God in their own conscience. If someone willfully flouts the rule because they decide they’re above them, again that’s on them to sort through with God later. The sacrament is between me and my God. I know what he expects of my heart so my goal is to get myself in that space for communion and not worry about others.